Hoechstetter v. Columbia University

Background

The United States Government moved to intervene in this civil case and in a related civil case, Jane Doe 16 et al. v. Columbia University et al., 20-cv-1791 (ALC) (KHP). The Government also requested a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of all fact discovery in both civil cases through August 8, 2022. The requested pause did not include document discovery conducted on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis, meaning access limited to the attorneys and other permitted recipients under the confidentiality arrangement.

The Government sought the stay because Robert Hadden, a defendant in both civil cases, was facing a criminal trial. The civil and criminal matters involved allegations that Hadden sexually abused patients under his care. Hadden opposed the requests. The plaintiffs, Columbia University, and New York Presbyterian Hospital did not object. The court held a conference on May 25, 2022, to hear from the parties and the Government.

Motion to Intervene

The court applied four requirements for intervention: a timely request, an interest in the case, a showing that the interest could be harmed by the case’s outcome, and a showing that the existing parties would not adequately protect that interest.

The court found that the Government satisfied all four requirements. No party appeared to be prejudiced by the timing of the request. The Government also showed an interest in maintaining the integrity of its criminal case against Hadden, that this interest could be impaired if overlapping civil discovery proceeded, and that the other parties were not positioned to protect that interest adequately.

Motion to Stay Discovery

The court considered six factors used when deciding whether to pause a civil case because of a parallel criminal proceeding:

The court found that the factors, considered together, favored a stay.

The civil and criminal cases involved overlapping allegations, and the parties agreed that the matters were intertwined. A grand jury had indicted Hadden on September 8, 2020, and his criminal trial was scheduled to begin on September 12, 2022, so the criminal case was actively proceeding.

The plaintiffs favored a stay. Their counsel stated that they anticipated New York law might change in a way that would allow them to bring claims that may previously have been barred by a time limit. The institutional defendants said a stay would neither benefit nor prejudice them.

Hadden argued that a stay would harm his ability to obtain information and evidence relevant to his defenses in the civil and criminal cases. The Government acknowledged that civil discovery could give Hadden access to a broader range of material than he would otherwise receive in the criminal case, including witness deposition testimony. The court concluded, however, that the Government had obligations to disclose certain evidence before trial and that the requested stay was limited in duration. The court therefore found that any prejudice to Hadden was limited, although this factor weighed slightly against a stay.

The court found the judicial-resources factor neutral because the requested stay would end before the criminal case was resolved and therefore was unlikely to narrow the issues. The court also noted that document discovery could continue under an attorneys’-eyes-only restriction.

Finally, the court found that the public interest favored a stay. Without a stay, Hadden could obtain through civil discovery information relevant to the criminal prosecution. The court concluded that preventing premature disclosure of such information protected the Government’s ability to prosecute the criminal case and served the public interest in law enforcement.

Disposition

The Government’s requests to intervene in the civil matters and for a limited stay were GRANTED. Fact discovery was stayed through August 8, 2022, except that document discovery could proceed on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis. The Government was required to file a letter by August 2, 2022, stating whether it intended to seek another stay after August 8. If another stay was requested, the parties were directed to file a joint letter stating their positions.

The order was signed by Katharine H. Parker, United States Magistrate Judge.